SOUND OWNERS TOURS REGD Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Gurdeep Singh, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, organized a pilgrimage tour for a group of persons, who were complainants No.2 to 49 in the original complaint. He, on behalf of the complainants, entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for providing a tourist bus from 10.6.92 to 16.6.92 on payment of Rs.9,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,000/-was paid in advance on 4.6.92. The time fixed for the bus to report was 8 p. m. on 10.6.92 for departure for the pilgrimage. In fact, the bus reported at 11 p. m. The complainants were made to pay Rs.2,950/-before commencement of the journey. The complainants were further made to pay Rs.2,000/-to the driver at the border, another Rs.1,000/-was taken by the driver at Rampur for buying diesel. On the following morning i. e.11.6.92 at about 8 a. m. the bus hit a tree. Several persons travelling in the bus were injured. The complainant informed opposite party 2 about the accident on telephone as the bus was not in a position to move and continue the remaining journey. Opposite party 2 agreed to send another bus so as to reach there by about 6 p. m. No bus, however, reached the place of accident to resume the journey. The passengers had to wait there the whole night. The opposite party was contacted again on 12.6.92 when opposite party 2 stated that a substitute bus could not be arranged and the complainant could do whatever they liked. The complainant, therefore, arranged, another bus though not without considerable difficulty through M/s. Chawla Tourist Corporation (Regd.) on payment of Rs.12,000/-besides Rs.100/-per day for payment of the driver and contractor. The complainants had also to spend Rs.25/-per head to go to the place from where they were to be picked up by newly arranged tourist bus. The complainants claimed compensation @ Rs.4,000/-per person in addition to the amount spent in completing their trip.

(2.) The complaint was contested. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum found the material averments made by the complainants proved. It was Held that the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.1,000/-each to the complainants. Hence this appeal by the opposite parties.

(3.) We have carefully gone through the records and have heard Mr. Gurdeep Singh, complainant No.1, respondent in the appeal.